Fort Worth weekly gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1882-1891, 1887-09-30
q NOVEL LAW SUIT

Brothers & Harrison versus the State
of Texas in the Supreme court ct Austir
takes bold and novel view of the schoo
lands and the late lard board. The sui
is an appeal from Travis county wherein
! the state sued and obtained judgment
against the firm for the lease money or
certain school lands. the appellant!
claim that the lsnd board and the laN
creating 1t were without warrant o.
authority from the constitution and
that the plain and positive di-
rection in the constitution where, IL
srticle 7. section 4, II ssys that the lands
"shall be sold ct such times and on such
terms as may be prescribed by law" con-
tains clear inhibition upon any othe1
method of disposing of them. The Leg
islsture being limited in authority to tie
'fsale" of lands and those lands being
dedicated by tie people for a specific
purpose, with well defined restrictions
and limitations in regard 10 their man
agement ind disposition by the Legisla-
ture, are simply a trust fund and
ns in the casa CT all trustees:
the directions Ito sel) must be
| implicitly followed. The constitution
being silent on the subject Of leasing tie
school lands and plain, outspoken and
mandatory on the question of sale the
authority of tie Legislature was re-
stricted only to the sale OF these lands,
and no authority existed for leasing
Citing the maxim Of constitutional law,
that the power conferred upon the Leg
islature to make Laws caGuot be delegated
to any body or authority unless expressly
SO provided in the constitution, the ap-
pellsnts claim that IN the formation O.
the lard board this power YVES delegated
20 it by Inc Legislature and that the land
board did legislate in various weys dur
ing is existence especially in the mater
Il Classifying l2ccs, withdrawing them
from ths market and otherwise conToll-
irg them il violation OF Law ana Ct the
constitution which says that "tines and
terms OF sale sAail De provided by law. /"
Objection is made also because TIE Iand
board, being composed CT heads CT de-
partments, was in violation Of law in that
10 blended the executive snd legislative
departments in open violation OF conati-
tutionsl provision on the subject. In
fine, the objections urged are that the
Legisla IRE had 20 power to pass q Iea5e
law:
1. That the law they did 7psss did not
prescribe regulations fixing ne time enG
terms Of sale Or lease.
?. That !hey delegated this authority 10
the land board
8. That tAe iand board IN the exercise
Of this delegated authority, die psss rules
md regulations toE sale end lease, and
some tbtt were rot even in harmony with
he law giving them the authority.
4. That in the exercise OF this authority.
it being legislative in its nasuce, and Tie
board being composed OF the heads OF tire
executive departments, that there was a
collection oG persons Of one department
exercising powers properly belonging to
another.
5. That the action Of the board IS clear
iy and nquastionsbIY legislative in ma
turs, IS evidenced By their rules and c.
ders in changing ihe price IS fixed by
law, in Withdrawing from the market
lands placed there by law, in changing
the amount q ma2 could purchase tro.s
seven sections IS fixed by lsw, in pre-
sccibirg different and more o1Grous con-
ditions precedent to purchase than thase
fixed by law, in making classification Of
ell the lands as agricultural, when the
lay said it should be classified into agri-
cultural, pasture and timber lands.
The attorney in the case, Mr. J, B. Scar
borough, thinks he has good case and
if he is correct in his vIgws tie decision
by the Supreme court will be Que Of the
most important ever rendered in Texas.
II the land board was Ell unconstitutional
body, Gil It's acts are Of course uacoIs5i-
tutional. Itlooks gnoulish to attack 6
defuuct institution, out perhaps there is
wisdom il so doing. The argument PIE
scented is very plausible and the result
can only be coHlectared.